[TwoUptons]

I have a version 1 of this lens, and it has the same loose focus.

Mine did have some oil that redeposited itself all over an internal element, but I had that taken care of, and it's been great since.

I'm using it on a K1 (not available when the thread started) and I've been quite pleased since I had it cleaned. It still has a little halo when shot against bright light, but it's acceptable and it does well in every other sense.

It feels like a well-built 90s zoom. A lot of metal, very solid, with sloppy manual focus.

An aside, the focus receptacle sticks out a touch and will grind horribly on some rear caps if you focus while it's off the camera... it's not an issue at all on the camera.

I'd also like to thank the OP for an extremely helpful original post.

-Eric

[Zivelot]

Just an additional info that I meant to include for a long time but always forgot. All the sources I have found online about these two lenses state 13 elements in 11 groups for both versions which indicates that the second version is only mechanically re-designed.
Also some sites quote these lenses wrongly displaying images of the MkII version as MkI or vica versa. At the time of writing the original post I had the fully boxed MkII version. Even its original retail packaging quotes the 77mm filter thread lens as being MkII.
I tried to upgrade the original post, but not editable any more, or at least I could not figure out how to do it.

[awscreo]

Quick question - I took the lens out for a spin, and found right side of the frame to be pretty soft, I had similar problems with a Tamron 70-200 before that Tamron fixed under warranty. Is it a quirk of the design, or I got myself a decentered copy? Sharpness in center is pretty impressive, but if the lens is decentered I'd probably return it, although I'd lose like half the value of the lens due to shipping back to Japan

[clackers]

Rotate from landscape to portrait mode, and if the softness follows the turn, yep, decentred.

[Gabriel Nedelcu]

Hello ,
I'm looking for a wide or ultra wide lens for night photography or astrophotography. Can you recommend anything to me? I was thinking of irix or laowa
For full frame K1

[awscreo]

Hello ,
I'm looking for a wide or ultra wide lens for night photography or astrophotography. Can you recommend anything to me? I was thinking of irix or laowa
For full frame K1

I believe Irix gets very nice praise here or on other websites, and it's quite affordable. I used Rokinon 14 2.8 for astro and was quite happy with it. I don't think Laowa is better than either of those in this case (astro), its quite expensive and is aimed at interior/architecture crowd that requires little to no distortion in their straight lines. But of course it can be used for any other applications, it just seems like there are better value choices out there.

I hear that Rokinon 24 1.4 is the among the best astro photography choices. You could use that ultra wide aperture and get a ton of faint star light, and stack few vertical shots in a panorama to achieve same or wider field of view as UWA lenses. I'd like to try for myself and see just how much more light data I can see with such wide aperture.

I also have the DFA 15-30 but I haven't had a chance to try astro with it, hopefully will have an opportunity soon.

---------- Post added 01-20-18 at 02:30 PM ----------

I'd suggest reading this post, it was very helpful to me in understanding how astro stuff works (and in general it's probably one of the best resources for night photography I've seen).
Clarkvision.com: Low Light Photography: When f/ratio Does not Tell the Whole Story

[Gabriel Nedelcu]

Thank you

[kiron Kid]

My apologies for resurrecting an older zombie thread. However, I am intrigued by this lens. I already have the f/2.8 AT-X version, and the Tamron SP 20-40 f/2.7-3.5 lenses. Any opinions or experiences when compared to the two lenses that I mentioned?

Thank You

[cyberjunkie]

My apologies for resurrecting an older zombie thread. However, I am intrigued by this lens. I already have the f/2.8 AT-X version, and the Tamron SP 20-40 f/2.7-3.5 lenses. Any opinions or experiences when compared to the two lenses that I mentioned?

Which AT-X f/2.8?
I have the 24-40mm, which is uncommon and and very good, probably the best Tokina I own.
I don't have the Tamron, sorry, but I can tell you that the AT-X 3.5-4.5/20-35mm (first version) I own is my go-to lens if I need a wide angle zoom for my Pentax K-1.
Keep in mind that I use primes, mostly manual focus, 90% of the times, which means that I have never spent on zooms the kind of money I spent on primes. Zooms are for travel photography, when the bag has to be relatively small and/or there is a certain risk of theft or damage. Which means that zoom cannot be too expensive...
Another characteristic is portability. Zooms cover different focals using little space.
For example, the few times I really needed a long AF zoom, I have often used the AT-X 80-400mm instead of the Sigma 120-400mm, even if the Sigma is much better, cause the difference in size is relevant. The Tokina goes into a "normal" bag, the Sigma does not.
Back to the 20-35mm, I took great nature shots with it. Never architecture, so I don't know about distortion. Stopped down a couple of clicks it's definitely sharp enough for large prints or publication.
I would definitely advise buying one if you need a decently priced AF zoom that covers all the most used wide angle focals.